Nobel Prize winner, Francis Crick ,advanced civilisation transported seeds of life in a spacecraft

The late Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, co-discoverer of the shape of the DNA molecule and author of Life Itself, made the astounding claim ‘that an advanced civilisation transported the seeds of life in a spacecraft.

Indigenous tribes worldwide have within their oral history that they are visited by sky beings and are being genetically upgraded. The Dogan trib call the star visitors the Nummo, an alien species which came from Sirius and genetically upgraded humans when they came to Earth. The Aborigines of Australia also talk of the sky beings Wandjina, who made them and gave them laws to live by.

. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic."

Crick and Orgel further expanded on this idea in their 1981 book, 'Life Itself.'. They believed there was little chance that microorganisms could be transported between planets and across interstellar distances by random accident. But a technological civilization could direct panspermia by stocking a spacecraft with a genetic starter kit. They suggested that a large sample of different microorganisms with minimal nutritional needs could survive the long journey between worlds.

Coming full circle to his groundbreaking discovery of DNA's structure, Crick wondered, if life began in the great "primeval soup" suggested by the Miller/Urey experiment, why there wouldn't be a multitude of genetic materials among the different life forms. Instead, all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure.

Source
Francis Crick Wikipedia



Edit to add

[edit on 30-1-2010 by gortex]

That's interesting , Gortex. It's one thing to read the same things from Sitchin over and over , but it's something else to hear of an esteemed scientist asserting that life on this earth exists because of an extraterrestrial intelligent race having seeded the planet.

awesome, lends some credence and credibility to sitchin and hancock and temple... excellent. im a believer in the theory so this is good stuff for me

Its an interesting idea , and it would explain an awful lot. Mind you , perhaps the similarities in the DNA on this planet are explained by the availability of raw elements of which all life on this earth is made . Perhaps the DNA of a non terran lifeform would be totaly different to our own, having started with different building blocks ?

It is pure speculation on his part. As it says above: ...the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. I would go so far as to say it is non-existent. His claimed evidence is so weak as to be stillborn. That all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure doesn't tell us anything other all life on Earth shares the same DNA structure.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


So why wouldn't an Extra-Terrestrial civilization want to seed life to other planets ? ,we are making the first steps already , and we are a relatively young civilization .

Phobos-Grunt Probe to Put Microbial Life in Mars Orbit

The LIFE organisms were chosen with this danger in mind. Among the four bacteria to make the trip will be radiation-resistant Deinococcus radiodurans. Tardigrades, microscopic, eight-limbed invertebrates also known as water bears, were selected for their ability to repair DNA damage. Rounding out the group are three species of archaea—sometimes called "extremophiles" for their ability to thrive in conditions too harsh for other Earth life—along with yeast, plant seeds, and a soil sample collected from Israel's Negev Desert. Most of the samples will be freeze-dried and inert for the trip, to better resist the cold of space.

The goal, says Bruce Betts, the manager of the experiment for the Planetary Society, is to seek evidence for transpermia, the idea that life could have arisen on one body in the solar system and been transported via meteorites to seed life on another. For example, he says, "Could life have evolved first on Mars, been ejected off Mars, and then come to Earth?"

Francis Cricks theory is just that , a theory .
Science is made up of theories , just because this one involves the existence of Extra-Terrestrial civilizations makes it no less worthy of investigation .
Source


Edit to add

[edit on 30-1-2010 by gortex]

Saying something is "possible" is not the same as saying something "happened". And the fact that this was said by Crick does not add any additional credence to this idea.

I'm with Crick in saying that it is possible that life was deliberately transported here, but believing this without any evidence whatsoever makes it pure speculation -- no matter who is doing the speculating.

Crick hit on the idea that it would be unlikely that microorganisms could accidentally arrive on Earth from across space, but as long as you are engaging in pure speculation, you may as well say that life did come here accidentally -- or for that matter you might as well say life started here spontaneously and independently.

It's all pure speculation anyway, although it may be an interesting idea and fun to think about.

And, the fact that it is a Nobel Laureate that mentioned this is meaningless in the absence of evidence. Many people on ATS and even many science fiction writers have mentioned this possibility before. Crick has no supporting evidence, so his speculation is just as equal as anyone else who has hypothesized about this.



[edit on 1/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by gortex
So why wouldn't an Extra-Terrestrial civilization want to seed life to other planets ? ,we are making the first steps already , and we are a relatively young civilization

You're confusing a possibility with reality.

Originally posted by gortex
Francis Cricks theory is just that , a theory .
Science is made up of theories , just because this one involves the existence of Extra-Terrestrial civilizations makes it no less worthy of investigation

You are twisting what I said. This is has nothing to do with whether or not it has to do with extraterrestrials. You are relying on Crick's authority rather than evidence, even though Dr. Cricks is in no position to know.

It's not a theory, it does not meet the criteria of a theory. There is no evidence to support it (or refute it), nor is there a way to test or falsify it. It is an idea and little more.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

The basic components of DNA have been found in space. They have been found in comets. They have been found in meteorites. It has been shown that amino acids, under the right conditions, RNA-like molecules can spontaneously form. This indicates that rather than RNA (and eventually, DNA) coming from a single source, it may form form spontaneously from these space formed components. The discovery of amino acids in space came long after Crick had presented his hypothesis.

Crick's notions of panspermia were based on the belief that life based only on RNA (rather than DNA) was not possible and therefore the evolution of DNA was not possible (or at least, extremely unlikely). Crick was a scientist, he changed his mind when there was more data.

Many detailed questions were raised in the treatment of origins of the genetic code, but none has been answered definitively by experiment. Perhaps the most interesting question concerns the nature of the interaction that led to specific attachment of amino acids to primitive tRNAs. Was the anticodon involved? If the answer is yes, then certain codon assignments are predetermined. If the answer is no, then the genetic code is a frozen accident. We still favor the frozen accident theory, and we know of no convincing evidence against it.

www.fasebj.org...

Life found anywhere in the universe could be based on DNA, but because all life on Earth is, it does not mean it was "seeded".

[edit on 1/30/2010 by Phage]

I believe in this theory too, I think its the most probable, and the idea that junk dna isnt junk, its clear for nowadays scientists, but, it would be really amazing to see information about the creators ...



[edit on 30-1-2010 by Faiol]

Interesting thread. I havn't posted on this site for quite some time, glad to finally read an article worth reading.

reply to post by Phage


Thanks for the input phage , very informative .
That said though it still remains a possibility , surly you cant rule it out completely ,as I said in the post above we appear to be taking the first steps to our own experiments to seed life , how long till we seed Mars?.

Crick was a long-time proponent of the panspermia theory. It's an idea that doesn't generate a lot of interest amongst scientists. He supported the ideas of Dr. Wickramasinghe (Cardiff University). Although it's just an idea without evidence, it appeals to my ideals of science being open to speculation.

That life could be seeded from elsewhere is worth considering, speculating that it was somehow 'delivered' is over reaching.

reply to post by Phage


I think you have just made the strongest argument on life being abundant in the universe anywhere it can get its greedy little teeth into.

Just by contemplating the facts you stated...it would be almost insane to think otherwise. I guess the final question remains though...how many of these life filled planets are full of intelligent species cruising around space...would be nice to find something that answers that before our time has come.

Hmm...a big spaceship seeding life throughout the universe...meh...hardly a new theory...invasion of the bodysnatchers, stargate universe, and a billion other sci-fi shows have demonstrated this principle..neat theory, but until we "get out there", its all just speculation and philosophy.

reply to post by gortex

No. Of course it can't be completely ruled out but there is no evidence to support it either. We have no evidence of life on our own neighbor planets. We have no evidence of life on extra-solar planets. We have no evidence that the transportation of life across interstellar distances is possible.

Without evidence it is nothing more than speculation. Speculation is fine and necessary but it's important to remember that's all it is. When evidence is found which supplants speculation it's time to speculate about something else. While there is nothing that says the idea of panspermia or even directed panspermia did not occur, there is nothing that says it did and there is increasing evidence that the spontaneous emergence of life is not impossible or even improbable.




[edit on 1/30/2010 by Phage]

So where do you all think that the various cultures thru out the wordl got the idea that their "god" came from the sky, and they go into a creation story? The "bible" also makes reference to Those who from Heaven to Earth Came.

As to Mars....why is it Red?
Is that because of Iron?
I did read somewhere that in Terraforming Earth, the first thing that was put here was a bacteria that would eat the rust, thus freeing the Oxygen.
And from there progressively higher life forms were added.

Does that make sense to you?

reply to post by Phage

We have no evidence of life on our own neighbor planets

Not yet but the chances are more than favorable that we will discover some form of life in our Solar System in the next 10 - 20 years , then we can deal with all the implications that entails

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
It is pure speculation on his part. As it says above: ...the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. I would go so far as to say it is non-existent. His claimed evidence is so weak as to be stillborn. That all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure doesn't tell us anything other all life on Earth shares the same DNA structure.

It was pretty clear that he's speculating.
And scientific theory is just that; it's theory and speculation until a new theory comes along that disproves the old model.
Scientific theory speculates , Rex. That's what it does.
And if we already knew about other life then we wouldn't have people speculating.
Flight at one point was only a theory. But people were allowed to speculate on the theories involved because that's part of the process of new discoveries. Why hate the speculator? And why post about scientific theory when you don't know what it is?


"It's not a theory, it does not meet the criteria of a theory. There is no evidence to support it (or refute it), nor is there a way to test or falsify it. It is an idea and little more. "


That's from your second post. And here's my response.


"scientific theory: An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. Examples of theories: Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Mendel’s theory of Inheritance, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity"


www.ncsu.edu...

reply to post by gortex

Yes. If evidence of life is found on our neighbors and if it bears any resemblance to life on Earth (based on DNA) it will be evidence of interplanetary panspermia and the speculation could be "promoted" to a hypothesis. If there is a close enough resemblance it could even become regarded as fact.

That evidence may even allow the idea of interstellar panspermia to gain ground but without more evidence (I don't know what that would be), that idea would remain in the realm of speculation.


[edit on 1/30/2010 by Phage]

Graham Hancock is an amazingly incredible researcher. I wished he would do more lectures though.